Comments

John_Beech wrote on 9/29/2002, 6:52 PM
Any analog camcorder will be recording uncompressed, be it VHS or SVHS, 8mm or Hi8, Betacam SP, etc. Once you get to JVC's D-9 (Digital S), or Sony's Digital Betacam, you are getting compression in the camcorder, i.e. these are really digital tape drives! Of course, miniDV, DVCAM, and DVCPRO are compressed too. Is this what you were asking? Otherwise, "I" don't know of any digital camera not recording using data compression . . . affordable by mere mortals, that is!
asafb wrote on 9/29/2002, 7:01 PM
Basically, yes.

What do you recommend? - I wonder what they use in the DVD's for like the commentaries ; if DVCPRO, DIGIBETA are compressed like DVCAM, should I buy the most expensive DVCAM and it'll look like DIGIBETA?

And why is SDI so important - especially those cards that offer 4:2:2 SD-SDI IN what the heck is that?
jcarney42 wrote on 9/29/2002, 7:37 PM
There is one, it's called the Viper by Thompson. It's really making waves as a true digital replacement for film.

hop over to http://www.pixelmonger.com and select the camera menu option.

DV25, what most of us use compresses at 5 to1 for 8bit 4:1:1 or 8bit 4:2:0 video.
D9, DVCPro50 compress at 3 to 1 but give you 8bit 4:2:2 video, better contrast for starters. Better looking video all around, but much more expensive the the mini dv camera so popular today.
Digi Beta, less than 3 to 1 one and creates 10bit 4:2:2 color. closest to what is used in pro DVD processing.

Then you move up to HD. Which gets real expensive. The color ans reolution of mini-dv is better than Shvs, VHS or Hi8.
vicmilt wrote on 9/29/2002, 9:36 PM
You are asking your question from the wrong direction.
The first consideration is "who is your end user and how will he be seeing your output?"

Compression is only one small part of the overall look of any production. The most expensive video camera in the universe will still put out a crappy image if the shot is badly lit, composed, focused or produced.

On the other hand, beautifully produced and lit imagery will look great on most modern video cameras. This is particularly so if your end user is viewing your imagery on a standard television (analog) delivered on a VHS cassette.

Three chip cameras generally produce better imagery than single chip cameras. The same goes for component delivery vs composite delivery.
Component delivery (an analog system) is three wire, separating the color and luminance signals, and retaining sharpness and color saturation.
YC or SVHS (same thing) is a simplified version of the three wire component signal.
Composite delivery is what you have been viewing for the last 40 years. It uses one wire to deliver a signal "composited" of color and luminance information. Reds bleed. It's not too sharp. But a great show is still great.

Now we get into digital signal acquisition and delivery. It's an entirely different science and entirely different in it's needs and abilities.
The short story is that basically it's so much superior to most existing analog aquisition and delivery that there really is no comparison.

If you are doing event, wedding, industrial or regional commercial work, any decent 3 chip digital camera is superior to what we were using (Sony Beta analog), only 5 years ago. Those Sony Beta cameras cost over $65,000. I have a long career of 35mm film, and high end video TV production. In the last 5 years, I have produced any number of national TV commercials on my little Sony VX1000. No one ever complained.

Of course they are not the same. I wouldn't shoot a Clariol hair spot on ANY kind of video tape. But my digi TV commercials have been designed with the format in mind. They have basically been "testimonial" type of advertising. When you get done with optical effects, fast cuts and tight close-ups, they look great.

If you are producing major television shows you will have the budget to get (rent) "higher end" cameras. DigiBeta is the professional norm. In betwen these "layers" are many other choices; 4:2:2 Panasonic, SVHS, DigiVHS and a host of other choices are available. Every system has it's own supporters. It's sort of like Volvo vs BMW vs Mercedes vs who knows what.

If you are George Lucas and are going to project your show on huge screens and hope to gross hundreds of millions of dollars, there still are other solutions as well... high def, high end digital and still others appearing, every day.

In the end I suggest that you consider what you are intending to do and how you are intending to deliver it. Then I suggest that you buy the least expensive system that will do what you need.

Once upon a time you carefully bought equipment and used it for a lifetime. The moviola and arriflex movie equipment were in use before the second world war and are still viable in many professional circles today. On the other hand, nothing I use professionally today even existed over 5 years ago. And the stuff I bought for tens of thousands of dollars in the early '90s is basically worthless.

Well this has been a long one. It's more philosophy than technical.I hope it helps

Video production is not a matter of numbers.